• The Acquisition of Certain Area in Mumbai for Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Bill, 2014 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Textiles, Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao on February 11, 2014.

• The Bill empowers the central government to acquire land in Mumbai from the National Textile Corporation Limited (NTCL) for the construction of a memorial for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.  

• Background:  NTCL owns the land belonging to India United Mills No. 6 under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.  This Act allows the central government to acquire sick textile undertakings, including their property and transfer it to NTCL.  The mill is not operational at present. 

• Acquisition of land:  Under the Bill, the title of the land of India United Mills No. 6, currently vested with NTCL, will vest with the central government.  The central government will pay NTCL Rs 45.7 crore.  This amount will be used by NTCL to pay the workers and creditors of the United Mills No. 6, as mandated by the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.

• A memorial for Dr. Ambedkar will be constructed in its place, in pursuance of Articles 39(b) and Article 46 of the Constitution.  Article 39(b) states that material resources must be distributed to serve the common good.  Article 46 mandates that the State promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, including Scheduled Castes. 

• Management of land:  The construction and management of the memorial will be done by the government of Maharashtra, or a trust or society appointed by it.  However, the ownership of the property shall remain with the central government.

• Penalties:  Failure to deliver relevant documents pertaining to the transfer to the central government is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine of up to Rs 10,000.

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information. You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for noncommercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”). The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s). PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete. PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group. This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.